Norwood Ravenswood

Updated 20 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on the 22 May 2018. It was carried out by one inspector and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the service is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be available in the office. We were assisted on the day of our inspection by the registered manager.

Prior to the inspection we looked at the provider information return (PIR) which the provider sent to us. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Additionally we looked at all the information we had collected about the service. This included the previous inspection report and any notifications the service had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we sought feedback from people who use the service, staff and health and social care professionals. We took some of the views of relatives of people from the latest service feedback exercise.. Additionally we spoke with the registered manager, the operations manager, three staff members and received feedback from two health and social care professionals.

We looked at three people’s records and records that were used by staff to monitor their care. In addition we looked at the latest staff recruitment file, staff training records and a range of documentation that related to the management and quality monitoring of the service.

Updated 20 June 2018

This inspection took place on the 22 May 2018 and was announced.

Norwood Ravenswood is a domiciliary care agency providing a supported living service. A range of support is provided to people living in their own homes, some of whom share accommodation with others. The service supports people with a learning disability and associated needs. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to nine people.

The Care Quality Commission only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Nine people living in five residences were receiving regulated activity and were supported so they are able to live as independently as possible. Accommodation ranges from one to three people sharing a tenancy. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) does not regulate premises used for supported living, this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

At the last inspection on 16 and 17 February 2016, we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe by staff and would be confident to raise any concerns they had. The provider’s recruitment procedures were robust and medicines were managed safely. There were sufficient staff to provide safe and effective care at the times agreed by the people who were using the service.

There were procedures in place to manage risks to people and staff. Staff were aware of how to deal with emergency situations and knew how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through processes that they understood well.

Staff received an induction and spent time working with experienced members of staff before working alone with people. Staff were supported to receive the training and development they needed to care for and support people’s individual needs.

Family members and external professionals who were involved in people’s care were complementary of the services provided, some describing the care and support as very good. The comments we received demonstrated that people felt valued and listened to. People were treated with kindness and respect whilst their independence was promoted within their homes and the community.

The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Staff knew people very well and paid particular attention to finding out about their interests and personal preferences. This enabled support to be focused to achieve people’s desired outcomes. Individual support plans were person-centred and they considered the diverse needs of each person, taking into account any protected characteristics. The service provided flexible support embracing people’s individual wishes. People knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint and they felt confident they would be listened to if concerns were raised. The service was working to the accessible information standard. People’s needs were reviewed regularly and their care and support plans promoted person-centred care. Up to date information was communicated to staff as required to ensure they could provide the most appropriate care and support for each individual. Staff knew how to contact healthcare professionals in a timely manner if there were concerns about a person’s wellbeing.

The service was well-led, with strong leadership from the registered manager. Records were relevant, complete and reviewed regularly to reflect current information. The registered manager promoted an open, empowering, person centred culture. The values of the service were embedded in the way staff worked with people. Feedback was sought and used to monitor the quality of the service. Audits were conducted and used to make improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.